Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 09 November 2017 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE25F12949E for <>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:23:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lx-K-taiLa_4 for <>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B142129451 for <>; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:22:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07B24826E6; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:22:45 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Warren Kumari <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:24:31 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 18:23:16 -0000

On 11/09/2017 03:54 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Just a reminder, this draft was approved by the IESG a while ago
>> and is in state "RFC Ed Queue : AUTH48 for 23 days". This unique
>> unicast has been in there for a long time, although the phrasing
>> was clarified in the last couple of months, which is what WG
>> and IETF Last Calls are for.
> ... and in the interest of transparency -- the document was all
> approved on Nov 6th; on Nov 7th Fernando sent the above mail (and also
> separate mail to myself, saying that this was violating v6ops charter
> and needed to have been done in 6MAN).

FWIW, and as noted in my original email, I got to re-read this document
as a result of the recent thread "Security: Unique IPv6 Prefix per Host"
on v6ops (the Subject caught my eyes).

Based on the discussion in v6ops, I decided to re-read the document in
question. And when I did, Oct 31, I asked the group if this wasn't a
protocol spec
There was no response on-list.

I tried to track when the text on Section 4 was added, and it seems to
have happened on Sept 14
way after IETF Last Call, and apparently also after some IESG members
have balloted on this document.

Certainly I wished that my timing would have been better.. but it looks
like even if I had reviewed this document during the IETF LC, I wouldn't
have caught this, since the change was applied *after* IETF LC. It even
seems to have been applied after Suresh cleared his DISCUSS.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492